Johnson Takes a Chance on Moving NDAA, But Hurdles Remain

The House is expected to vote Tuesday on a procedural rule for the $1.15 trillion annual defense policy bill, setting up a test of whether Speaker Mike Johnson can corral his narrow majority amid a Republican revolt over President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority, the SAVE America Act.

The vote is the next hurdle for the National Defense Authorization Act, a must-pass measure that authorizes Pentagon programs and policy for the coming year. If Republicans adopt the rule, lawmakers are expected to begin debate on amendments and move toward final passage as soon as Wednesday, ahead of leaving for the Independence Day recess.

But it’s anybody’s guess whether Johnson’s gambit to regain control of the House floor will succeed. Asked for a forecast, House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) said to reporters, “I’ll let you know in three days.”

The House Rules Committee on Monday approved a slate of more than 300 amendments for floor votes, teeing up several contentious debates, including a proposal from Rep. Eli Crane (R-Arizona) to ban funds for Ukraine security aid, which is likely to split Republicans.

Several Republican amendments targeted transgender troops and military family members. A measure proposed by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) would bar transgender servicemembers, while amendments from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) would ban certain gender-related medical treatments under the military’s TRICARE program and prohibit male participation in female sports at Defense Department schools.

Still, the NDAA may be caught in Washington’s biggest tangles, as Republicans fight over how and whether to tie the SAVE America Act to the defense bill. Ahead of the House vote on the rule, Republicans braced for some defections and hoped for a few Democrats to come to their rescue.

To break the intraparty impasse, Johnson proposed a maneuver Monday dubbed a “MIRV” that would allow the House to tack the elections legislation to the defense bill before sending it to the Senate. The Rules Committee included a provision to do so.

MIRV stands for Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle, a multiwarhead missile payload — a euphemism for the packaging of multiple pieces of legislation.

But the proposal immediately drew opposition from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida), who has insisted that Johnson’s plan “won’t work.” She warned that she and other conservatives will oppose the procedural rule governing debate, thereby jamming the House floor, if they are denied a standalone vote on her amendment.

“I want it baked prior,” Luna said. “If it’s a MIRV, to my understanding, it can be stripped out in the Senate.”

“We want full bakedge,” she added.

Asked whether the Senate could still remove the provision in negotiations over the defense bill, Luna acknowledged the possibility.

“It is my job to try to at least give Save America the best chance that it has,” she said. “And, in my opinion, it’s being attached to that vehicle as a must-pass piece of legislation.”

Johnson confirmed the emerging plan on Monday after telling reporters earlier he wanted to pass the Save America Act as part of a House party-line reconciliation bill. Reconciliation was “in process” and “the only way” to get the Save America Act to the president’s desk, he said.

Democrats dismissed the maneuver.

“There is a zero percent chance the SAVE Act ends up in the NDAA,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, calling the push a “shell game.”

Not all conservatives shared Luna’s objections. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a member of the House Freedom Caucus and the Rules Committee, said he would support the rule if it advanced the SAVE America Act through the MIRV procedure.

“Whether that satisfies Luna, time will tell,” he told NOTUS.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Georgia), also on the Rules Committee, cast doubt on whether joining the two bills would improve the Save Act’s chances in the Senate.

“We could vote to send it to the Senate every day,” he said. “It doesn’t mean the Senate’s going to do anything with it.”

The fight underscores the political morass surrounding Trump’s latest push to enact the voting legislation that would require proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote and mandate photo identification for casting ballots in federal elections. The measure would also sharply limit the use of mail-in voting.

The issue took on new urgency Monday after the Supreme Court rebuffed a Republican-led challenge to state laws for mail-in ballots. Trump then renewed his call for the Senate, where Republicans don’t have the votes to pass the bill, to take it up.

When the House Rules Committee met Monday, Rogers pitched the defense bill as essential to rebuilding the defense industrial base and deterring adversaries such as China.

“We must take action to address these problems before American deterrence erodes any further,” he told the Rules Committee. “We are giving the industry the certainty it needs to invest, expand and produce faster.”

But Democrats are already leery of the bill. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the Armed Services panel’s top Democrat, said the legislation addresses real global threats, but he argued its part of an irresponsible Republican spending plan that includes $350 billion through a party-line reconciliation bill and $80 billion tied to military operations against Iran.

“We cannot afford a $1.6 trillion defense budget,” Smith said. “Ukraine has developed very cheap technologies that has enabled them to stop in its tracks a vastly larger military. We need to develop that instead of thinking we can buy absolutely everything.”

Democrats also used the debate to criticize Trump’s military campaign against Iran and its economic impact.

“When you talk about national security, it’s more than the number of bombs we have,” McGovern said. “People are worried about whether they can afford groceries at the supermarket.”